Central Information Commission Judgements

Dr. Raju Abraham vs The Banking Codes & Standards … on 6 August, 2008

Central Information Commission
Dr. Raju Abraham vs The Banking Codes & Standards … on 6 August, 2008
          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                                            Appeal No.2623/ICPB/2008
                                                                     F.No.PBC/07/193
                                                                       August 6, 2008
            In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18/19
Complainant:        Dr. Raju Abraham

Public Authority:   The Banking Codes & Standards Board of India (BCSBI)
                    Mr. K.V. Subba Rao, CEO

FACTS

:

By an application dated 17.4.2007, the appellant sought for various
information as to whether Catholic Syrian Bank Limited was a member of BCSBI
and if so various other information connected with the same. The Assistant
General Manager informed the appellant that BCSBI being a Society registered
under the Societies Registration Act and being a charitable trust was not a public
authority in terms of RTI Act. Hence the present complaint. The complaint was
heard on 18.1.2008 when the CEO of BCSBI was present during which he
submitted that BCSBI was an autonomous body created for the purpose of
rendering voluntary service to all the banks in the country including private, public
as well as foreign banks as an independent watchdog to ensure that the banks
deliver services in accordance with Codes and Standards evolved for “Fair
treatment of customers”. He also submitted that BCSBI was established in the
year 2006 and for the first five years, the funding would be by RBI and that it is
functioning from the premises of RBI. He further stated that at present BCSBI is
getting subscriptions from all its members for creating a corpus for its future
expenses. However, he contended that since BCSBI is not funded either by State
or Central Government, it is not a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the
RTI Act and funding by RBI cannot bring BCSBI within the meaning of RTI. He
also wanted to furnish further information to establish that BCSBI was not a
public authority. The said information has been furnished. In the further
submissions, it is stated that during the financial years 2006-2007 and 2007-
2008, while the RBI funding was of the order of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.135 lacs
respectively, the contribution by members banks was to the tune of Rs.156 lacs
and Rs.200 lacs, respectively and therefore even funding by RBI is not
substantial. It is also stated that any decision to treat BCSBI would result in
private and foreign banks withdrawing their membership and thereby defeating
the very objective of setting up the Board. It is also submitted that BCSBI is
wholly independent of RBI and is not subjected to any oversight or audit by RBI.
It has also relied on the decision of this Commission CIC/80/C/2007/91 wherein it
was observed that funding by a public authority which itself is not an appropriate
government cannot be said to be indirect funding by the appropriate Government

1
and therefore such an institution cannot be treated as a public authority. In the
submissions by the appellant, it is contended that since all Reserve Bank money
is Government money, any funding by RBI should be treated as funding by the
Central Government.

DECISION:

Taking into consideration the object and purpose of the RTI Act, I have
taken the view that any institution substantially financed, owned or controlled by
any public authority would have to be treated as a public authority not
withstanding the fact the there is no direct or indirect funding by an appropriate
government. Therefore, I have to only examine whether RBI, being a public
authority is substantially funding BCSBI. Even though for the first five years, RBI
were to fund BCSBI, I find that its funding to be only less than 50% of the total
funding of BCSBI for the last two years and that there is no managerial control
by RBI over BCSBI. In view of this, I hold that BCSBI is not a public authority in
terms of the RTI Act.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/-

(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :

(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar

Address of parties :

1. Mr. K.V. Subba Rao, CEO, Banking Codes and Standards Board of India,
C-7, Reserve bank of India Building, 4th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051

2. Dr. Raju Abraham, Department of Poltical Science, Mar Athanasius
College, Kothamangalam College P.O. Ernakulam Dt. Kerala State-
686666

2